SESSION 8.

Delivering more effective stormwater

management in the UK and Europe – lessons
from the Clean Water Act in America
Pour une gestion plus efficace des eaux pluviales au Royaume Uni
et en Europe : Enseignements du "clean water act" en Amérique.
Prof Richard Ashley 1, Jeremy Jones 2, Stuart Ramella 3, David
Schofield 4, Richard Munden 5, Kate Zabatis 6, Alan Rafelt 7, Alex
Stephenson 8, Dr Ian Pallett 9.
1
Pennine Water Group, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield, S1 3JD.
R.Ashley@sheffield.ac.uk.
2
Integrated Urban Drainage Steering Group, c/o Wastewater Strategy Manager, CWW,
Pentwyn Road, Nelson, Treharris, CF46 6LY. jeremy.jones@ntlworld.com
3
Polypipe Civils Ltd, Union Works, Loughborough, Leicestershire,LE11 5RE.
Stuart.Ramella@Polypipe.com.
4
Arup, The Arup Campus, Blythe Gate, Blythe Valley Park, Solihull, West Midlands, B90
8AE david.schofield@arup.com
5
COPA Ltd., Crest Industrial Estate, Marden, Tonbridge, Kent, TN12 9QJ
6
United Utilities North West, Thirlmere House, Lingley Mere Business Park, Great
Sankey, Warrington, Cheshire WA5 3LP. kate.zabatis@uuplc.co.uk
7
Environment Agency, Manley House, Kestrel Way, Exeter, Devon, EX2
LQ.alan.rafelt@environment-agency.gov.uk
8
Hydro International, Shearwater House, Clevedon Hall Estate, Victoria Road,
Clevedon, BS21 7RD. alex.stephenson@hydro-international.co.uk
9
British Water, 1 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9BT,
ian.pallett@britishwater.co.uk

RESUME
Le CWA - Clean Water Act (programme Eau Pure Américain) mis en place aux Etats-
Unis dans les années 70 peut apporter des enseignements très utiles pour l'Europe.
Le CWA fût l'élément moteur pour l'amélioration des cours d'eau et autres milieux
aquatiques. Il a dû faire face aux même types de difficultés et opportunités que celles
rencontrées aujourd'hui en Europe lorsque l'on travaille sur les systèmes de gestion
des eaux pluviales. Par l'analyse des 30 années d'histoire du CWA, l'Europe devrait
être capable d'éviter une bonne partie des problèmes rencontrés aux Etats-Unis pour
maîtriser les rejets d'eaux pluviales afin d'améliorer la qualité de l'eau.

ABSTRACT
What is known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the USA, implemented in the early
1970s, can provide some useful lessons for Europe. The CWA has been the key
driver in cleaning up watercourses and other water bodies, has encountered a similar
range of difficulties and opportunities that are being found across Europe when
dealing with stormwater systems. By drawing on the 30 years of historical lessons
from the CWA, the EU should be able to avoid many of the problems encountered in
the USA for controlling stormwater discharges to deliver improvements in water
quality.

KEYWORDS
BMP, Clean Water Act, Floods Directive, Institutional factors, Legislation, LID, Priority
Hazardous Substances, Stormwater, SUDS, Water Framework Directive.

NOVATECH 2007 1697

SESSION 8.3

INTRODUCTION
Europe is required to implement the “good status” requirements of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) by 2015 (Commission of the European Communities,
2000). This provides the European Community (EC) framework for the protection of
waters. The aim is to promote the sustainable use of water, while progressively
reducing or eliminating pollutants for the long-term protection and enhancement of the
aquatic environment. A new proposal for a Directive on the Assessment and
Management of Floods (Floods Directive) (Commission of the EC, 2006) sets out to
reduce and manage flood risk. The Floods Directive and measures taken to
implement it are to be closely linked to the implementation of the WFD. The EC
proposes to fully align the organisational and institutional aspects and timing between
the Directives, based on river basin districts defined in the WFD.
Particular challenges for stormwater management are two WFD ‘daughter’ Directives
in preparation. One concerns groundwater and the definition of good chemical quality,
and the other, the way in which the most polluting substances are handled, the
‘priority substances’ (PS) and the ‘priority hazardous substances’ (PHS); some of
which, such as nickel, are ubiquitous in stormwater. Notwithstanding the daughter
Directives, stormwater sewers and drains are known to convey significant pollutants
and need to be better controlled under the WFD; albeit such pollution being better
managed at source than in drains.
There are various forms of ownership and operation of the networks of combined or
separate drains and sewers across the EU that convey stormwater runoff (e.g.
Middlesex University, 2003; Mohajeri et al, 2003; Juuti & Katko, 2005). These may be
owned publicly or privately or be part of the network that is operated by sewerage
undertakers or municipalities. Similar extents of combined and separate sewers also
exist in the USA. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the management of storm
water, are common in many countries worldwide, despite a lack of consistent
information on their performance even in the USA (Field et al, 2006). There is a
general belief that these systems are ‘more natural’ or ‘more sustainable’ than
conventional piped drainage and sewerage systems. At the very least BMPs usually
provide the means to simultaneously deliver water quality, quantity and amenity
benefits and are a major component in the delivery of clean-up of stormwater
discharges required under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the USA.
There are clear parallels between the WFD and the CWA. The latter was
implemented in the early 1970s and has resulted in significant efforts to improve the
quality of America’s ‘impaired’ water bodies, much of which has included
improvements to stormwater management. US experience has demonstrated that the
use of BMPs and Low Impact Developments (LIDs) can be a much more cost-
effective way of ensuring protection to receiving waters than the traditional approach
of stormwater control using drains and sewers. In addition to separate storm
drainage, BMPs can also help to better manage the stormwater that is discharged
into combined sewers, by slowing down the rate of runoff, or even by removing these
inputs altogether.
There are similarities between the member States of the EC and the individual States
in the USA, although the Federal legislation and the main regulator the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have a more direct role in the
implementation of the CWA in the USA. There is no equivalent in the EU as each
member state is responsible for the implementation and policing of the WFD
requirements. This paper reports on an investigation of US practice in relation to
European practices and has concluded that there are a number of important lessons
and opportunities of relevance from US practice to better manage stormwater
in Europe.

1698 NOVATECH 2007

 SESSION 8.3

THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF THE WFD FOR STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT
The WFD is an opportunity to ensure a consistent and integrated approach to the way
in which we currently manage water within defined river basin districts. The
establishment of the European 'priority list' of substances posing a threat to or via the
aquatic environment is significant. There are currently 33 priority substances on this
priority list (Official Journal of the EC, 2001; Commission of the EC, 2006a).
Estimates of the costs of compliance for the UK suggest some €9bn would be needed
to deal with these substances for the discharges from point sources alone. Even with
this level of investment, only some 70% of the PHS would actually be removed (Ross
et al, 2004). However, the 33 so far identified could be added to significantly in the
future and this may add additional treatment and financial burdens and possibly
require the development and installation of new technologies. Inevitably the Directive
will mean that some stormwater and other discharges to water bodies will be required
to cease or at the least have substantial treatment systems installed.
The precise standards to be attained to comply with the WFD are being set within and
by each member state. Ecosystems do not recognise state boundaries and hence
there has to be harmonisation especially across shared borders. Even in the UK the
approach to the implementation and adoption of proposals is likely to vary for each
constituent country, depending on present and proposed legislation and on policy
differences. It will also depend on the need for Ireland and the UK, as separate
Member States, to harmonise standards, where appropriate, within shared River
Basin Districts (UKTAG, 2006).
In addition to the WFD, the proposed Floods Directive seeks to provide maps and
flood risk management plans through a broad participatory process. The main
purpose of the draft Floods Directive is to set out a framework for the reduction of risk
to human health, the environment and economic activity associated with flooding.

THE CLEAN WATER ACT

Governance in the USA is exercised at a National or Federal level and also at a State
level, with Counties and Townships, and in some areas, Indigenous peoples (tribes)
having responsibilities and a degree of autonomy not typically seen in Europe. Much
of the clean up of water bodies in the USA has resulted from litigation by activists and
NGOs. This led to the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. This law became commonly known as the CWA. This gave the
Federal Agency and the EPA the authority to implement pollution control programmes
and continued requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in
surface waters, requiring a permit to discharge any pollutant from a point source into
navigable waters.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ‘MS4’: Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems was developed to protect receiving waters from
contaminated stormwater discharges (Maestre et al, 2004). Initially the EPA believed
that the traditional end-of-pipe controls used for process discharges and treatment
works could not be used to control stormwater pollution. Stormwater regulations
(Phase I) were initially developed for large municipalities (>100,000 population) and
for certain industrial categories. Now Phase II of the stormwater permit programme
extends to all urban areas. The CWA provided the capability to implement stormwater
management plans at the regional level and was welcomed by planners; however, in
the late 1970s problems arose due to inadequate data and lack of technological
development. As a consequence, between 1978 and 1983, the USEPA conducted the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Programme (NURP) to determine water quality from
separate storm sewers for different land uses.
NOVATECH 2007 1699
SESSION 8.3

Starting in the late 1980s, efforts to address polluted runoff have increased
significantly. For ‘non-point’ runoff, voluntary programmes, including cost-sharing with
local landowners, are the key tool. For ‘wet weather point sources’ like urban storm
sewer systems and construction sites, a regulatory approach is now being employed.
Engagement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of
strategies for achieving and maintaining State water quality and other environmental
goals is another hallmark. Evolution of CWA programmes over the last decade has
included a shift to more holistic watershed-based strategies with equal emphasis on
protecting healthy waters and restoring those that are ‘impaired’.
States can be authorized to administer the NPDES program by EPA. An NPDES
programme has various components, including; Base Programme for municipal and
industrial trial facilities, Federal Facilities, General Permitting, Pretreatment
Programme and Biosolids. A State may receive EPA authorisation for one or more of
the NPDES Programme components.
The control of stormwater depends ultimately on the appropriateness of the local
municipality within the regulatory system. Whilst the granting of Permits is delegated
from EPA to State level this is often further delegated. In general, this usually reflects
the population of the area. Where populations are less dense, this authority would be
administered at County Level, and in sparsely populated areas would probably be
retained at State level.
Whilst it would appear that the regulations are disjointed, with some States still not
having yet achieved even Phase I of the CWA, let alone working towards Phase II,
which has a delivery date of 2008, this is inevitable given the flexibility in the
implementation process. The requirements of the CWA are implemented at site level
via the definition of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired water bodies. A
TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can
receive and still meet pre-defined water quality standards, and an allocation of that
amount to the source of pollutants causing the impairment. The most common
reported impairments are: metals (19%); pathogens (13%); nutrients (9%); sediment
(8%) (TMDL website: www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/).
The CWA establishes the water quality standards and TMDL programmes, this
requires that the jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and
develop TMDLs for these. Specific guidance is also provided on the mandatory public
outreach programme for which local towns would be responsible. This should focus
on educating the public about negative water quality impacts. In summary, it is
apparent that the regulatory practices from State to State are variable, but these are
appropriate to the locale which they serve. Usually provided the construction of the
stormwater systems receives the appropriate permits these will then be taken over
(adopted) by the municipality, county or state.

LESSONS FROM USA CONTROL OF STORMWATER PRACTICES

FOR EUROPE
Although the CWA has been the baseline for cleaning up the waters of the USA since
1972, progress has been slow, often achieved only through litigation and court orders.
The devolution of responsibilities for NPDES to State and local level, with some
retained by the EPA, has resulted in a complex and fragmented approach being
taken, albeit one in which local knowledge and priorities have established the main
goals for improving impaired waters and for which local community involvement has
been strong. Stormwater facilities are delivered and managed by a wide variety of
organisations, from municipalities to private contractors and the use of stormwater
utility companies is common.

1700 NOVATECH 2007

 SESSION 8.3

A range of measures for the management and treatment of stormwater in the USA
are evident. These range from structural controls to ‘natural’ and equivalent ‘green’
systems. Early on in the development of the measures arising from the CWA and in
setting TMDLs, it was realised that the performance of BMPs in terms of water quality
could not be readily defined due to a lack of knowledge about their long term
performance (Field et al, 2006). Associated with this has been the accreditation of a
number of proprietary devices for the removal of specific pollutants. Unfortunately the
desire for a ‘universal’ treatment system for stormwater pollution control has also
resulted in the promotion of such systems and their utilisation, despite their inability to
provide ‘complete treatment’.
The CWA has a number of similarities to the WFD. However, the CWA has been
around for 30 years with a target for Phase II implementation of 2008. The WFD
echoes a lot of similar sentiments to the CWA but implementation is expected over a
much shorter and possibly unrealistic time frame. Many of the water quality standards
that are enforced in the EU have centered on the quality issues relating to
foul/combined sewer pollution. Surface water has heretofore not been subject to the
same degree of quality control (Middlesex University, 2003). Apart from the
imposition of petrol/oil interceptors when high levels of pollution are expected there is
little to be found for guidance on the form of treatment for stormwater. Some of the
requirements to remove pollutants from stormwater can be overly onerous under both
the CWA and WFD. Caution is required when it is expected that the removal of ‘all’ of
a certain ‘specified pollutant’ such as Cadmium or Nickel is possible or even desirable
economically, as some of these elements are naturally occurring and total removal is
not realistic other than through changes at source.
In the USA as well as the EU there is a move to new ‘more natural’ stormwater
management approaches, BMPs, LIDs, SUDS (sustainable drainage systems) and
‘source controls’. In some parts of the USA ‘natural’ stormwater systems, originally
defined as BMPs, have been in use for at least 50 years as an alternative to
traditional piped drains and sewers. There is therefore a long history of experience in
regulating, implementation and use. Inherent in these is the need for greater
engagement of all the actors involved. In the USA citizen involvement in the planning
of stormwater management via formal boards, informal citizen groups and other
activities is notably strong since it is a requirement under the CWA. Whilst this does
occur in the EU, such involvement is generally much weaker and gaining public
confidence and commitment to the better management of stormwater is therefore
often ineffective (e.g. for UK, see House of Lords, 2006).There are major
impediments to the use of these systems in many EU countries due to urban density,
regulatory inadequacies and institutional constraints. Elsewhere in the world, such as
in the USA, many of these barriers do not exist as institutional arrangements are
more flexible, although there are other challenges to be overcome. New ideas and
versatile systems are needed that will assist with particular applications in Europe,
such as high density housing, retrofitting to resolve existing problems and to meet the
requirements of the WFD.
US experience has shown that the incremental and localised small-scale
management of stormwater, such as: evapotranspiration techniques; green roofs;
water gardens and/or disconnecting existing inputs to major drainage systems can
collectively provide significant benefits to managing local and downstream water
quality and quantity. These approaches can also provide other benefits such as local
irrigation or opportunities for reuse.
It is apparent from US practice that there are considerable benefits from providing
greater incentives for the use of innovative stormwater management techniques.
These are most effective where the stormwater costs are clearly identifiable within

NOVATECH 2007 1701

SESSION 8.3

charging schemes. Incentives include charges (and discounts) based on directly

connected impervious areas. Clearly identifiable costs and discount or rebate
opportunities can aid in engaging each of the stakeholders. In many areas of the
USA separate stormwater utilities (municipal or private) deliver a service associated
with a defined income stream as above. These utilities also raise awareness of
stormwater, help identify better opportunities for innovative management and more
effectively engage all stakeholder groups.
Whole life performance and costing of stormwater systems is needed to include
construction, maintenance and the selection of the most appropriate sustainable
drainage systems (this may include piped systems). Ensuring effective design and
construction is challenging even in the USA and the lodging of developer payments
with the regulatory authorities before construction can ensure that good designs and
construction are actually delivered.
In the USA the CWA makes clear recommendations about education and community
participation. There is a need to build capacity (knowledge and competence) within
the stakeholder communities and also to help stakeholders understand/accept
innovatory approaches and technologies which may include the need to assume a
more responsible role. There are a wide variety of approaches to the adoption and
maintenance of BMPs in the USA, from municipal responsibility to individual
householders. Within a particular regulatory area there is a tendency to utilise one
single approach. It is apparent that stormwater systems should be adopted and
managed by a single appropriate agency within a local context. This may be a
separate stormwater utility (see above). In the EU adoption and maintenance is a
major challenge for local on-site systems and is linked to how these systems are
funded, which is not uniform across the community.
Notwithstanding recent efforts in the EU, there is a need to invest more in developing
and evaluating the long term performance of BMPs via clearly defined and
scientifically robust long-term monitoring. Protocols for monitoring defined from US
studies will help to define investigation programmes (e.g. Roesner et al, 2006). This
will require significant investment across the community and in member states and
should be recognised by regulators and others as essential for the development of
long-term and sustainable stormwater management systems. There is a need to
better understand the effectiveness of dispersed solutions to the management of
stormwater in a European wide context. Costs, risks and institutional barriers need to
be considered within a whole system performance context. Cross-regulatory and
institutional barriers arising due to the mixed management responsibility for
stormwater in many countries in the EU need to be exposed and eliminated where
stormwater disconnection is identified as the best option.
A separate and identifiable separate surface/storm water charge should be apparent
to bill payers as is done in many parts of the USA, in the same way that sewage and
water charges are usually identified. Alternatives available for stormwater system
users to e.g. disconnect, reuse, fit green roofs, should be made clear in information
available from regulators and sewerage service providers and others such as public
groups. This should be accompanied by clear indications of the financial support and
benefits (rebates) available for alternatives, along with educational programmes
aimed at building the capacity of householders, facilities managers and others to take
a more active role in local stormwater management. As the latter will not be in the
interests of any private sewerage undertakers, because it will lead to a reduction in
income, regulators will need to review the incentives to the undertakers to promote
these changes to current practice. The limited experience of BMPs and equivalent
systems worldwide means that there needs to be better arrangements in place to

1702 NOVATECH 2007

 SESSION 8.3

ensure good design and construction. This requires the education and training of all
stakeholders, especially planners and building control officers.

CONCLUSION
The capacity to understand and deal effectively with stormwater within virtually all
stakeholder communities in Europe is limited. This is also true even in the USA,
although the CWA recognises and formalises the need for stakeholder education.
With the changing drivers (and even current ones such as the WFD) this is no longer
going to be acceptable. A more concerted and encompassing approach to the
engagement and education of all stakeholders is essential in order to build the
capacity to deal with the future challenges. There is a clear need for a cross-
institution stakeholder engagement and capacity building initiative; however, this is
may currently be difficult to achieve due to the inflexibility and intractability of the
existing regulatory and institutional arrangements that are restraining the
opportunities for innovative stormwater management in many European countries.
Currently the place of stormwater (and water) within formal planning processes in
many EU countries is not considered to be very important. In view of the future
uncertainties from climate change and impacts from current legislation (WFD in
particular), the place of stormwater management will need to take a more central role
in all aspects of urban planning. In addition, regulatory systems will need to become
more flexible and adaptable to new knowledge.

LIST OF REFERENCES
Commission Of The European Communities (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy, OJL 327 of 22.12.2000.
Commission Of The European Communities (2006). Proposal for a Directive Of The European
Parliament And Of The Council on the assessment and management of floods {SEC(2006)
66} (presented by the Commission). Brussels, 18.01.2006 COM(2006) 15 final
2006/0005(COD).
Commission Of The European Communities (2006a). Brussels, 17.7.2006 COM(2006) 397 final
2006/0129 (COD). Proposal for a Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council
on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive
2000/60/EC (presented by the Commission) {COM(2006) 398 final} {SEC(2006) 947}.
DTI (2006). Sustainable Drainage Systems – a mission to the USA. Report of a DTI global watch
mission. March 2006. UK Department of Trade and Industry.
Field, R., Pitt R., Heaney J. (Ed.) (2000). Innovative Urban Wet Weather flow management
systems. Technomic pub. ISBN 1-56676-914-0.
Field R., Tafuri A N., Muthikrishnan S., Acquisto B A., Selvakumar A. (2006). The use of best
management practices (BMPs) in urban watersheds. DEStech pub. Inc, Lancaster
Pennsylvania. ISBN 1-932078-46-0
Gammeltoft P. (2006). Evidence to Science and Technology Committee. 8th Report of Session
2005-6. Water Management.8th Report of Session 2005-6. Water Management. (Vol II) HL
Paper 191-II. Q627 p236.
House of Lords (2006) Science and Technology Committee. 8th Report of Session 2005-6. Water
Management. Vol. I: Report. HL Paper 191-I. Vol II: Evidence HL Paper 191-II. The
Stationery Office Ltd. London.
Juuti P S., Katko T S. (Eds.) (2005). Water, Time and European Cities - History matters for the
Futures. WaterTime project. EU Contract No: EVK4–2002–0095.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinf21/en/key/18.html.
Maestre, A., Pitt, R. E., Williamson D. (2004). ‘Nonparametric statistical tests comparing first flush
with composite samples from the NPDES Phase 1 municipal stormwater monitoring data.’
Stormwater and Urban Water Systems Modeling. In: Models and Applications to Urban
Water Systems, Vol. 12. (edited by W. James). CHI. Guelph, Ontario, pp. 317 - 338.
Middlesex University (Eds.) (2003). Review of the Use of stormwater BMPs in Europe. Project
under EU RTD 5th Framework Programme Contract No EVK1-CT-2002-00111. Adaptive

NOVATECH 2007 1703

SESSION 8.3

Decision Support System (ADSS) for the Integration of Stormwater Source Control into
Sustainable Urban Water Management Strategies. Unpublished report.
[http://daywater.enpc.fr/www.daywater.org/].
Mohajeri S., Knothe B., Lamothe D-N., Faby J-A. (2003). Aqualibrium : European water
management between regulation and competition. European Commission. ISBN 92-894-
6428-3.
Official Journal of the European Communities (2001). Decision No. 2455/2001/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council. Establishing the list of priority substances in the
field of water policy and amending directive 2000/60/EC. 15.12.2001.
Roesner L., Pruden A., Kidner E M. (2006). Guidance for improving monitoring methods and
analysis for stormwater- borne solids. WERF draft report 04-SW-4.
Ross D., Thornton A., Weir K. (2004) Priority Hazardous substances trace organics and diffuse
pollution (Water Framework Directive): Treatment options and potential costs. UKWIR report
ref no. 04/WW/17/5. ISBN 1 84057 333 3.
UKTAG (2006) UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive. UK
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS (PHASE 1) Final report August 2006
(SR1 – 2006) UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive.
[www.wfduk.org].

1704 NOVATECH 2007